Alan Manuel Gloria: > We could also use one of the later techniques I eventually settled on: > have readers return a one-item list to mean "got a datum, here it is!" > or an empty list to mean "didn't get a datum". It complicates all > actions, admittedly - now you have to unwrap the return value - but > avoids special marker cons cells.
True. But I think I have an even better approach - instead of calling it_expr in this special case, have it recurse to t_expr. Then special indents "work like usual". It's much simpler - just one more line to handle this special case, and we don't have to deal with any additional wrapping/unwrapping. Below is the change. So below is another tweak, which seems to be a more general approach. --- David A. Wheeler (group_i=it_expr {$v = $group_i.v;} /* Ignore initial GROUP/scomment */ | comment_eol (indent g_body=body {$v = $g_body.v;} /* Normal GROUP use */ - | same (comment_eol same)* g_i=it_expr {$v = $g_i.v;} /* Plausible se + | same ( g_i=it_expr {$v = $g_i.v;} /* Plausible separator */ + /* Handle #!sweet EOL EOL t_expr */ + | comment_eol restart=t_expr {$v = $restart.v;} ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122412 _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss